I concur fully with what Syd writes. I guess the point is that in the refs he
uses, the term is defined as an abbreviation, with a specific (narrow) meaning
and if it is understood as such, then fine. Given that specific use, it is OK.
That simply gets around the problem that the way we bird people use the word
doesn't match with the broader use of the word. Yes I agree most bird people
talking about "avian vocal mimicry", use the word "mimicry" as short for it.
Yet that only highlights that it worth pointing out that it is just a word and
doesn't really relate to the broader biological use of the word. This is why
the article I referred to by Dobkin is so important, because it does explain
the implications of different behaviours and gives a name for each.
It is also interesting and correct to note that in the bits that Syd cites
"Mimicry vocal" does NOT include the aspect of "advantageous resemblance" that
is included in the definition of "Mimicry". Which is my point exactly. The
Regent Honeyeater's behaviour does appear to be consistent with "advantageous
resemblance". And so may, just possibly, the behaviour of birds in mimicking
calls of dangerous species in particular circumstances, if there is some
demonstrable benefit in doing so. Though it is hard to be sure about that. Yes
Syd's point is also true about lyrebirds learning their "mimicry" by copying
mature lyrebirds. That is an interesting refinement of this copying behaviour.
Philip
|
